Venetian Medal - Francesco II Morosini

Iosephus

Francesco II Morosini

1755


Bronze, 91.8 mm Ø, 297.4 g

Obverse: Front facing bust of Morosini, wearing long curly wig and a richly decorated procurator's stole. Around, LAURENTIUS . MAUROCENUS . EQUES . AC . DIUI . MARCI . PROC 1755 (Lorenzo Morosini, Knight and Procurator of Saint Mark, 1755).

Reverse: Figure of Venice, wearing Doge's cap, seated on a throne placed on a pedestal, facing right towards the Lion of St. Mark, over which she holds a scepter. Around, ET . MVLCTANS . ET . MVNERANS . SEMPER . IVSTA (He Is Always Just In Punishing And Rewarding).

Francesco II Morosini, called Lorenzo, was born on June 21, 1714 in Venice. It has been noted that nature was kinder to him in mind than in physical qualities, and he was destined for a political career. After five years of discussions, the Treaty of Mantua, negotiated by Morosini, was finalized in 1755 between the Republic of Venice and the Hapsburg Empire, settling the dispute over the Garda and Tyrol area. To reward Morosini, the Venetian Senate appointed him as Procuratore di San Marco de Supra on July 2, 1755, to which this medal refers. He held various offices through his political career, which continued for the next three decades. Morosini died in Treviso on December 1, 1793.

References: Voltolina 1533 (this piece); Serenissima Collection II, Lot 70 (this piece)

harasha

91.8 mm. Wow!
Does this piece have maker's mark or signature?
And the nose looks to be in very good shape. Nice, for a piece this old.

Zohar

Beautiful. How do you know if this is a recast or original?

Iosephus

<< <i>Beautiful. How do you know if this is a recast or original? >>


Hard to tell. I generally look at the quality compared to known "good" medals, as recasting will of course result in loss of detail. Unfortunately, this medal seems somewhat scarce, and there are not many references for this piece. The major reference in Piero Voltolina's corpus of Venetian medals, La Storia di Venezia Attraverso le Medaglie, and the sale of his collection over three sales by Arsantiqua. This is that specimen, so it has a good provenance. I was able to compare to two other examples which were sold recently:




I feel that the details are sharper on my example, and combined with the provenance, feel relatively confident that it is a "good" contemporary piece (the word "original" having its own connotations which are not necessarily applicable to medals). For reference, larger images of my example:

STLNATS

What an interesting medal Joe. Especially like the imagery on the reverse and appreciate the translation of the legends. Its also fun to see that the size of the lettering seems to get a bit smaller on the obverse as they tried to fit in the legend. At any rate, great medal and congrats!

Was this cast or stuck? There seems to be some doubling of the letters but the surface suggests a casting (which often was appropriate for earlier originals of course).

Iosephus

<< <i>What an interesting medal Joe. Especially like the imagery on the reverse and appreciate the translation of the legends. Its also fun to see that the size of the lettering seems to get a bit smaller on the obverse as they tried to fit in the legend. At any rate, great medal and congrats!

Was this cast or stuck? There seems to be some doubling of the letters but the surface suggests a casting (which often was appropriate for earlier originals of course).
>>

This was cast (a struck medal of this size and thickness would be quite a task for that time!). The doubling could have come from a shifting of the mold.

Talking about the legends, I also found it interesting that the artist used the typical "V" in place of "U" on the reverse, but used all "U" letters on the obverse, even in "DIVI".

nicholasz219

Very nice medal, Joe. I am very ignorant of medals, so I like reading your posts because I always walk away learning something.

Are most medals from this period cast? Is the production over a long period of time, is that the reason for your saying "'original' doesn't carry the same connotation when it comes to medals"?

Iosephus

<< <i>Are most medals from this period cast? Is the production over a long period of time, is that the reason for your saying "'original' doesn't carry the same connotation when it comes to medals"? >>

Actually, by this time period, most medals were struck, as mass production was easier (if you had the equipment). Struck medals rose to prominence in the late 16th century and dominated starting in the 17th century, but large pieces (such as this) were cast because the technology for striking could not bring up the relief on really large medals. There was also a flourishing of large, cast medals in Florence in the late 17th century, though that too was ending around this time (note that the style of this piece is entirely different from the Florentine pieces, and I mention them only to give some perspective).

Regarding "original", yes, medals were often cast/struck at multiple times, so it can become difficult to say what is really an "original" emission and what is a later issue, either by the artist himself, his workshop, or another issuing authority. However, another problem with the term when discussing cast medals is well explained in a sentence written by Stephen Scher in an issue of the MCA Advisory: The only original is the model, the use of the term "original" generally being mis-used, since everything that follows is, strictly speaking, an "aftercast."

Iosephus

<< <i>91.8 mm. Wow!
Does this piece have maker's mark or signature?
And the nose looks to be in very good shape. Nice, for a piece this old. >>

Nope, nothing identifying the artist, and it is listed in references as anonymous.

Unfortunately, while the nose looks good in images, it is a bit smashed in. Here's a quick shot of a side view, but I couldn't get a good focus so it's still hard to see (though you can see how high the relief is on this piece, so it's not a surprise that the vulnerable nose didn't escape the ravages of time unscathed).

theboz11

Thats a beautiful dinner plate